From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Shannon Zhao Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 1/6] ACPI: add APEI/HEST/CPER structures and macros Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2017 09:00:03 +0800 Message-ID: <59A0C813.2060201@huawei.com> References: <1503066227-18251-1-git-send-email-gengdongjiu@huawei.com> <1503066227-18251-2-git-send-email-gengdongjiu@huawei.com> <599EC7AB.3080604@huawei.com> <69090a96-ce90-4b2b-a419-c8d847d56093@huawei.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from szxga04-in.huawei.com ([45.249.212.190]:5458 "EHLO szxga04-in.huawei.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754250AbdHZBBL (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Aug 2017 21:01:11 -0400 In-Reply-To: <69090a96-ce90-4b2b-a419-c8d847d56093@huawei.com> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: gengdongjiu , lersek@redhat.com, mst@redhat.com, imammedo@redhat.com, peter.maydell@linaro.org, pbonzini@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, qemu-arm@nongnu.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, edk2-devel@lists.01.org, christoffer.dall@linaro.org, marc.zyngier@arm.com, will.deacon@arm.com, james.morse@arm.com, tbaicar@codeaurora.org, ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org, mingo@kernel.org, bp@suse.de, shiju.jose@huawei.com, zjzhang@codeaurora.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, devel@acpica.org, john.garry@huawei.com, jonathan.cameron@huawei.com, shameerali.kolothum.thodi@huawei.com, huangdaode@hisilicon.com, wangzhou1@hisil Cc: huangshaoyu@huawei.com, wuquanming@huawei.com, linuxarm@huawei.com, zhengqiang10@huawei.com On 2017/8/25 18:37, gengdongjiu wrote: >>> + >>> >> +/* From the ACPI 6.1 spec, "18.3.2.9 Hardware Error Notification" */ >>> >> + >> > It's better to refer to the first spec version of this structure and >> > same with others you define. > do you mean which spec version? the definition is aligned with the linux kernel. What I mean here is that it's better to refer to the ACPI spec version which introduces Hardware Error Notification first time. >> > >>> >> +enum AcpiHestNotifyType { >>> >> + ACPI_HEST_NOTIFY_POLLED = 0, >>> >> + ACPI_HEST_NOTIFY_EXTERNAL = 1, >>> >> + ACPI_HEST_NOTIFY_LOCAL = 2, >>> >> + ACPI_HEST_NOTIFY_SCI = 3, >>> >> + ACPI_HEST_NOTIFY_NMI = 4, >>> >> + ACPI_HEST_NOTIFY_CMCI = 5, /* ACPI 5.0 */ >>> >> + ACPI_HEST_NOTIFY_MCE = 6, /* ACPI 5.0 */ >>> >> + ACPI_HEST_NOTIFY_GPIO = 7, /* ACPI 6.0 */ >>> >> + ACPI_HEST_NOTIFY_SEA = 8, /* ACPI 6.1 */ >>> >> + ACPI_HEST_NOTIFY_SEI = 9, /* ACPI 6.1 */ >>> >> + ACPI_HEST_NOTIFY_GSIV = 10, /* ACPI 6.1 */ >>> >> + ACPI_HEST_NOTIFY_RESERVED = 11 /* 11 and greater are reserved */ >> > In ACPI 6.2, 11 is for Software Delegated Exception, is this useful for >> > your patchset? > it is usefull, for all the error source, I reserved the space for them. > Because the space is allocated one time, is not dynamically allocated. > so I use the ACPI_HEST_NOTIFY_RESERVED to specify that there is 11 error source. > I mean whether the new type Software Delegated Exception is useful for RAS. If so, we could add this new type here. Thanks, -- Shannon